CNN says Wii U Basic Set costs $228 to make

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by bonesawisready5 (4576 posts) -

http://money.cnn.com/video/technology/2013/03/18/t-ts-nintendo-wii-u-teardown.cnnmoney/index.html?iid=HP_River

CNN Money has their own breakdown of what everything in the Wii U costs. I'm not sure how accurate they are but here is what they're saying.

Wii U RAM (2GB) $6, Wii U Flash Memory (8GB model) $6, case and everything else ($79), processor $40

Wii U console itself total cost: $228

Game Pad components: $30

Wii U Game Pad total cost: $79 (they say the Wii U Game Pad's 6.2 inch display costs $24)

 What do you guys think? Is CNN wrong? How do you think Nintendo should cut costs to make the Wii U cheaper?

#2 Posted by TwistedShade (3127 posts) -

I imagine that's pretty close to the actual number. I remember Nintendo saying they only needed to sell one game, to make a profit on the system. It's hard to say how they could possibly cut cost's, I don't think shrinking the Gamepad, would be a good idea it's supposed to be the "Big" thing about the whole system and if they shrink it down even alittle bit, it may make it harder for developer's to focus on. Since they'll need to reoptimize everything for both screen sizes they may even need to cut some content off the screen.

#3 Posted by bonesawisready5 (4576 posts) -

I imagine that's pretty close to the actual number. I remember Nintendo saying they only needed to sell one game, to make a profit on the system. It's hard to say how they could possibly cut cost's, I don't think shrinking the Gamepad, would be a good idea it's supposed to be the "Big" thing about the whole system and if they shrink it down even alittle bit, it may make it harder for developer's to focus on. Since they'll need to reoptimize everything for both screen sizes they may even need to cut some content off the screen.

TwistedShade

I imagine it would easily scale it down to fit to the screen, can't imagine this ever being an issue for devs

#4 Posted by Vickman178 (1035 posts) -

Makes sense, they took a similar loss on the Gamecube (like 9$). Also wondering how much PS4 is going to cost...

#5 Posted by Madmangamer364 (3584 posts) -

Value is the name of the game here, and while a lot of what you're saying makes sense on paper, I'm not sure if those cutbacks would send a better message in terms of value to the consumer. As a potential Wii U owner, I wouldn't feel too happy about knowing that the system was being sold with less than what it was at launch, even if it was being sold for less (and that's no guarantee). Instead, I'd prefer it if the system was somehow able to make a more convincing argument that what I'd be investing in was worthwhile as it currently is.

It's not the consumer's fault that the Wii U is currently being sold at a loss, especially since that's how it launched. New consumers shouldn't be forced to accept less to make up for that, if you ask me. I think that would just ultimately compound the struggles the system is already facing when it comes to appealing to new consumers. Instead, I think this is something Nintendo has to roll with, until a certain something(s) come along to give the system a legitimate boost, assuming IF it/they come at all. Regardless of whether or not Nintendo CAN do the things you're saying and be profitable with the console, I just don't think it's as important as stressing why people should be interested in the system, regardless of price.

#6 Posted by Master_Of_Fools (1253 posts) -

No. Nintendo said themselves they only need to sell 1 game per console to make a profit. A Mini Gamepad? No thanks. Nintendo Land already installed? you realize then your deluxe wouldn't have its 32GB anymore right...unless they added a few extra GB... Overall dont worry about Nintendo making money, they're Nintendo they have been around for 124 years. By the end of the year Wii U will be selling like the Wii.

#7 Posted by euro96 (499 posts) -

I don't think Nintendo should worry about cutting the cost of the console, it is well rumoured that Nintendo have big cash reserves and can afford to make substantial losses for a good few years. Right now the Wii U is facing poor sales, and I don't think the price has much to do with it.

With this in mind what Nintendo really should have done is make the Wii U more powerful, but sell at the same price with a big marketing push. This would have cost them a lot money wise, but with a whole year on their rivals it would have got them massive market share which long term would have been more beneficial.

#8 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

All I see here is that Nintendo skimped on the hardware in favour of the controller...

With how cheap RAM is, it could easily have double the amount.

#9 Posted by bonesawisready5 (4576 posts) -

No. Nintendo said themselves they only need to sell 1 game per console to make a profit. A Mini Gamepad? No thanks. Nintendo Land already installed? you realize then your deluxe wouldn't have its 32GB anymore right...unless they added a few extra GB... Overall dont worry about Nintendo making money, they're Nintendo they have been around for 124 years. By the end of the year Wii U will be selling like the Wii.

Master_Of_Fools

That statement about one game making it profitable has since been proven false and retracted by the press that originally published it so there's that. And while I love my Wii U and want it to succeed I don't think anyone really believes it will be selling like the Wii in its heyday, unless you meant selling like the Wii is now (which is outselling the Wii U)

#10 Posted by bonesawisready5 (4576 posts) -

All I see here is that Nintendo skimped on the hardware in favour of the controller...

With how cheap RAM is, it could easily have double the amount.

nameless12345

Yea, I just can't help but think $2 more could've given the console 4GB RAM.

#11 Posted by Toxic-Seahorse (4078 posts) -

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

All I see here is that Nintendo skimped on the hardware in favour of the controller...

With how cheap RAM is, it could easily have double the amount.

bonesawisready5

Yea, I just can't help but think $2 more could've given the console 4GB RAM.

It wouldn't have mattered much though because more ram doesn't necessarily mean the system is more powerful. The Wii U's weak point is and always will be it's CPU.
#12 Posted by bonesawisready5 (4576 posts) -

[QUOTE="bonesawisready5"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

All I see here is that Nintendo skimped on the hardware in favour of the controller...

With how cheap RAM is, it could easily have double the amount.

Toxic-Seahorse

Yea, I just can't help but think $2 more could've given the console 4GB RAM.

It wouldn't have mattered much though because more ram doesn't necessarily mean the system is more powerful. The Wii U's weak point is and always will be it's CPU.

That can be debated. Sure its no 8-core beast like in the PS4 but it certainly isn't as weak as some point out. Even at 1.24Ghz (which BTW is the clock speed a hacker found while in Wii mode, there's still a small chance it could be a bit higher in Wii U mode but not much of a chance) with three cores it could run circles around some older CPUs like the 360's Xenon.

#13 Posted by GunSmith1_basic (9726 posts) -
cheaping out on hardware in favor of the controller was the right decision. The main reason why is because those controller costs will drop much farther than hardware costs would. I envision the Wiiu being an acceptable product in another year or two.
#14 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"][QUOTE="bonesawisready5"]

Yea, I just can't help but think $2 more could've given the console 4GB RAM.

bonesawisready5

It wouldn't have mattered much though because more ram doesn't necessarily mean the system is more powerful. The Wii U's weak point is and always will be it's CPU.

That can be debated. Sure its no 8-core beast like in the PS4 but it certainly isn't as weak as some point out. Even at 1.24Ghz (which BTW is the clock speed a hacker found while in Wii mode, there's still a small chance it could be a bit higher in Wii U mode but not much of a chance) with three cores it could run circles around some older CPUs like the 360's Xenon.

 

Not without a better floating point instuction set. (i.e. "vector extentions" - PS4 will feature 256-bit SIMD AVX while WiiU is stuck at 64-bit)

#15 Posted by bonesawisready5 (4576 posts) -

[QUOTE="bonesawisready5"]

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"] It wouldn't have mattered much though because more ram doesn't necessarily mean the system is more powerful. The Wii U's weak point is and always will be it's CPU.nameless12345

That can be debated. Sure its no 8-core beast like in the PS4 but it certainly isn't as weak as some point out. Even at 1.24Ghz (which BTW is the clock speed a hacker found while in Wii mode, there's still a small chance it could be a bit higher in Wii U mode but not much of a chance) with three cores it could run circles around some older CPUs like the 360's Xenon.

 

Not without a better floating point instuction set. (i.e. "vector extentions" - PS4 will feature 256-bit SIMD AVX while WiiU is stuck at 64-bit)

I've read about how awesome the Wii U's CPU can be on NeoGAF by those super-smart users along with help from the folks at Chipworks. From I understand it can be prett good at certain things sometimes and I'm honestly happy with what we got as far as clock speed, cores, etc.

#16 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="bonesawisready5"]

That can be debated. Sure its no 8-core beast like in the PS4 but it certainly isn't as weak as some point out. Even at 1.24Ghz (which BTW is the clock speed a hacker found while in Wii mode, there's still a small chance it could be a bit higher in Wii U mode but not much of a chance) with three cores it could run circles around some older CPUs like the 360's Xenon.

bonesawisready5

 

Not without a better floating point instuction set. (i.e. "vector extentions" - PS4 will feature 256-bit SIMD AVX while WiiU is stuck at 64-bit)

I've read about how awesome the Wii U's CPU can be on NeoGAF by those super-smart users along with help from the folks at Chipworks. From I understand it can be prett good at certain things sometimes and I'm honestly happy with what we got as far as clock speed, cores, etc.

 

For Nintendo's own games, it's optimal.

For 3rd parties, it is not as we have seen quite some of them complain about it.

#17 Posted by beefdog (9176 posts) -

With the wii u having a gpgpu cpu load should be minimal compared to last gen games. Especially if all the other consoles are going the same route. Developers just need to learn how to take advantage of that in consoles.

#18 Posted by bonesawisready5 (4576 posts) -

[QUOTE="bonesawisready5"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

 

Not without a better floating point instuction set. (i.e. "vector extentions" - PS4 will feature 256-bit SIMD AVX while WiiU is stuck at 64-bit)

nameless12345

I've read about how awesome the Wii U's CPU can be on NeoGAF by those super-smart users along with help from the folks at Chipworks. From I understand it can be prett good at certain things sometimes and I'm honestly happy with what we got as far as clock speed, cores, etc.

 

For Nintendo's own games, it's optimal.

For 3rd parties, it is not as we have seen quite some of them complain about it.

And others have praised it. Its a mixed bag, one that I don't know enough about to get too worked up over. 

#19 Posted by Toxic-Seahorse (4078 posts) -

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="bonesawisready5"]

I've read about how awesome the Wii U's CPU can be on NeoGAF by those super-smart users along with help from the folks at Chipworks. From I understand it can be prett good at certain things sometimes and I'm honestly happy with what we got as far as clock speed, cores, etc.

bonesawisready5

 

For Nintendo's own games, it's optimal.

For 3rd parties, it is not as we have seen quite some of them complain about it.

And others have praised it. Its a mixed bag, one that I don't know enough about to get too worked up over. 

I haven't seen any dev praise the Wii U's CPU. Maybe the Wii 's hardware as a whole, but not it's CPU alone. Metro Last Light was canceled because of it supposedly.
#20 Posted by CaptainGamespot (609 posts) -

gamepad is driving up costs. thats why wii u has cheaper memory, gpu, etc.

#21 Posted by CaptainGamespot (609 posts) -

actually this link says nintendo is making $70 on every wii u basic model.

http://gengame.net/2013/03/cnn-estimates-the-cost-of-manufacturing-wii-u-to-be-about-228/

they cite cnn.

#23 Posted by bonesawisready5 (4576 posts) -

actually this link says nintendo is making $70 on every wii u basic model.

http://gengame.net/2013/03/cnn-estimates-the-cost-of-manufacturing-wii-u-to-be-about-228/

they cite cnn.

CaptainGamespot

I read it wrong thanks for pointing it out

#24 Posted by bonesawisready5 (4576 posts) -

I haven't seen any dev praise the Wii U's CPU. Maybe the Wii 's hardware as a whole, but not it's CPU alone. Metro Last Light was canceled because of it supposedly.Toxic-Seahorse

I'm not trying to argue whether the CPU is good, bad or anything else. I'm happy with the results so far but I'm going to post some praise for it.

 

The performance problem of hardware nowadays is not clock speed but ram latency. Fortunately Nintendo took great efforts to ensure developers can really work around that typical bottleneck on Wii U.

They put a lot of thought on how CPU, GPU, caches and memory controllers work together to amplify your code speed. For instance, with only some tiny changes we were able to optimize certain heavy load parts of the rendering pipeline to 6x of the original speed, and that was even without using any of the extra cores.Shinen

 

 

Team Ninja's boss said this:

 

To be completely blunt and honest, theres no way that the Wii U processor is horrible and slow compared to other platforms. I think that comment was just 4A trying to find a scapegoat for a simple business decision on their part. Team Ninja

Just because the system's CPU isn't near 3.2Ghz like 360/PS3 doesn't make inferior, its new and different and is hard to compare. It can do things with that rumored 1.24Ghz clock speed much better than the Xenon possibly. I do know that some games (not many to my knowledge) on 360 had audio take up an entire core and the Wii U uses an additional processor to handle audio so that isn't a burden on the main CPU

#25 Posted by Toxic-Seahorse (4078 posts) -

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"]

I'm not trying to argue whether the CPU is good, bad or anything else. I'm happy with the results so far but I'm going to post some praise for it.

 

[QUOTE="Shinen"]The performance problem of hardware nowadays is not clock speed but ram latency. Fortunately Nintendo took great efforts to ensure developers can really work around that typical bottleneck on Wii U.

They put a lot of thought on how CPU, GPU, caches and memory controllers work together to amplify your code speed. For instance, with only some tiny changes we were able to optimize certain heavy load parts of the rendering pipeline to 6x of the original speed, and that was even without using any of the extra cores.bonesawisready5

 

 

Team Ninja's boss said this:

 

To be completely blunt and honest, theres no way that the Wii U processor is horrible and slow compared to other platforms. I think that comment was just 4A trying to find a scapegoat for a simple business decision on their part. Team Ninja

Just because the system's CPU isn't near 3.2Ghz like 360/PS3 doesn't make inferior, its new and different and is hard to compare. It can do things with that rumored 1.24Ghz clock speed much better than the Xenon possibly. I do know that some games (not many to my knowledge) on 360 had audio take up an entire core and the Wii U uses an additional processor to handle audio so that isn't a burden on the main CPU

To be honest I never did much research other than seeing quotes on here. Yeah, it's entirely possible 4A was using it as an excuse, which is why I said supposedly. I guess the main problem is that people don't normally post positive Wii U hardware stuff much. :P
#26 Posted by Heirren (15995 posts) -
Saw Reggie on Antiques Roadshow buying parts so I'm not surprised.
#27 Posted by WWE6427 (207 posts) -

I doubt it cost them $228 to make it, most of the time it  doesn't cost them much to make it but they charge a lot to buy it.

#28 Posted by k2theswiss (16598 posts) -
What you fail to understand is labor, packaging, shipping, advertising, development price, support and warranty all have a price Also and must be place on price to
#29 Posted by SolidTy (41595 posts) -

What you fail to understand is labor, packaging, shipping, advertising, development price, support and warranty all have a price Also and must be place on price tok2theswiss

All consoles have those, it's not a Unique point for Wii U.

I don't believe or trust any company PR statements. Nintendo's job, like any company, is to sell their products. They need to build value in every statement they make.

That's fine, I know the game.

I take those statements from any company about their product with a grain of salt. Are they really losing money? Who f***ing knows or cares. I doubt it personally. Unless they give us transparency, it's all just PR to sell.

I was sold when I found out Nintendo was making a new console. I'm in, but don't expect me to believe the PR from Xbox, Playstation, or Nintendo execs.

#30 Posted by bonesawisready5 (4576 posts) -

[QUOTE="k2theswiss"]What you fail to understand is labor, packaging, shipping, advertising, development price, support and warranty all have a price Also and must be place on price toSolidTy

All consoles have those, it's not a Unique point for Wii U.

I don't believe or trust any company PR statements. Nintendo's job, like any company, is to sell their products. They need to build value in every statement they make.

That's fine, I know the game.

I take those statements from any company about their product with a grain of salt. Are they really losing money? Who f***ing knows or cares. I doubt it personally. Unless they give us transparency, it's all just PR to sell.

I was sold when I found out Nintendo was making a new console. I'm in, but don't expect me to believe the PR from Xbox, Playstation, or Nintendo execs.

You make a good point, but considering Nintendo has been very open about selling their hardware at a profit (at launch nonetheless) in the past I trust them to tell me the truth. They know a lot of people in the gaming community don't want to hear that they're selling stuff at a profit coz they'll get accussed of being "cheap". But they have still come out and admitted it. Even the 3DS was sold at a big profit and Nintendo was open about getting it back to a profit post-price drop.

I don't think Nintendo loses very much per Wii U, like $10.